The Rule of First Use

originally posted by: EasternShadow
וַאֲדֹנֵי and יהוה‬ are both different words in Hebrew. And can be confused by many contexts.

My understanding is that as the Jews were developing their ban on the pronunciation of YHWH, readers were instructed to use the word ADONAI instead. When vowels were added to the text, YHWH was written with the superimposed vowels of ADONAI, in order to remind them. Westerners later turned this combination into the name "Jehovah", unconsciously using the consonants and the vowels of two completely different words.

a reply to: DISRAELI

From what I understand from the articles and notes of the AKJV translators is that the Hebrews called him by the Hebrew equivalent of LORD. while the word was LORD the spelling in the Hebrew dictionary always points to JHWH not YHWH, the latter is from Yiddish but had been traced to the Greek god of knowledge. Which of the Pantheon of gods was he?

a reply to: EasternShadow

the question lays the ground work for the rest of my reply.

Oh are you my student? I haven't seen you in any of my classes at the university or my church. I thro not or you would have been as attentive as they to the OP but you missed it as do all self avowed scholars who go about correcting the word of God instead of STUDYING IT.

I never said it was completely destroyed, can you not read plain English. I said something was completed ( the will of God as spoken by the Law and the prophets), and something was Destroyed, all the gates were gone and most of the walls down even Solomon's temple was completely destroyed, not like it was in 70 AD where the city was completely leveled and new roads made and an octagon based temple to Jupiter (Zeus of the Greeks), which was later destroyed and its very foundation is the same that was used for the Dome of the Rock. Note the Octagonal foundation of the Dome still there today. Your argument is of one who does not know how o study the Bible and more than likely has spent most of his time reading books of men Rather than the Preserved word of God as found in the AKJV.

Before you say it, you will claim the AKJV is full of errors and so on and so forth, which again proves you don't study you get their opinions of men from their writings. Dead Sea scrolls are just that dead they were found with many other false teaching in the form of scrolls, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. It matches the NKJV of the Bible but not the AKJV, it was used by Liberty University to change the AKJV version of ISAIAH to their version found in the NKJV.

The books of the Bible were all written by Jews (very important to note that) all Apocrypha and Gnostic books were written by Gentiles and unbelieving in the LORD, Jews under christening conversion to the Catholic church long after 250 AD.

Did you know that more Jews died at the hands of more Catholics in Poland, Germany, Spain, France, Morocco, Egypt, Russia, Austria, Greece, Arabians, Iraqis and Iranians and more than the 6 million who died under Catholic Hitler during WWII?

A little reading of older history books and studying the word of God, and history would reveal one thing. Men trying to bring in a period of the golden age of enlightenment have done nothing but fill the earth with wars, the hospital beds with the injured, and filled the grave yards with coffins.

Yet no matter how advance man gets he still just like Cain, a lying no good murdering sinner, because their father was a murderer from the beginning.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Unless God the father, the Spirit of the Living God, and the Lord Jesus Christ indwell thee, you cannot no matter how hard you try understand the words of God as found in the AKJV.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

the question lays the ground work for the rest of my reply.

Oh are you my student? I haven't seen you in any of my classes at the university or my church. I thro not or you would have been as attentive as they to the OP but you missed it as do all self avowed scholars who go about correcting the word of God instead of STUDYING IT.

I never claim to be your student. You said your lesson is incomplete. So I ask you again,

And you expect your students to understand incomplete lesson?

This your OP. You are responsible to make your statement as clear as possible, the same manner, it's your responsiblity to clarify your lesson to your students. If you deem your lesson is incomplete, then it's yourself to be blamed for the failure.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I never said it was completely destroyed, can you not read plain English. I said something was completed ( the will of God as spoken by the Law and the prophets), and something was Destroyed, all the gates were gone and most of the walls down even Solomon's temple was completely destroyed, not like it was in 70 AD where the city was completely leveled and new roads made and an octagon based temple to Jupiter (Zeus of the Greeks), which was later destroyed and its very foundation is the same that was used for the Dome of the Rock. Note the Octagonal foundation of the Dome still there today.

If you don't meant by complete destroyed, then why compare it with, gen 1:2 "without form and void"?

Yes, the temple had been razed and destroyed many times. You haven't answer yet how it is related to Gen 1:2.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Your argument is of one who does not know how o study the Bible and more than likely has spent most of his time reading books of men Rather than the Preserved word of God as found in the AKJV.

Yet you are the one who conclude, "Jerusalem's temple destruction" as the meaning of "without form and void"

You haven't proven your preserved word of god. I've read your argument with Noinden. I choose not to participate because I'm still waiting for you to provide me the autograph of your preserved word of god.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Before you say it, you will claim the AKJV is full of errors and so on and so forth, which again proves you don't study you get their opinions of men from their writings.

If you haven't notice, AKJV and all King James variants use unicorns and all other mythical beast. If you want to believe in mythical unicorns, that's your right. But I choose to believe in real goats, as I believe the god of Abraham, Isaiah, David, Samuel and Moses is the god of rational.

If you want to believe in AKJV soft porn, that's your right too. But I believe my god to be sensible and omniscient that all kind of porns are taboo. That His words have been poorly translated ( or added ) by stupid MEN, ( especially perverted ancient Byzantium Romans who view porns as norm of life in their era ).

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Dead Sea scrolls are just that dead they were found with many other false teaching in the form of scrolls, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. It matches the NKJV of the Bible but not the AKJV, it was used by Liberty University to change the AKJV version of ISAIAH to their version found in the NKJV.

Dead Sea scrolls were written by gnostic authors who assume a lot. You don't want to become one of them in this new age, do you?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
The books of the Bible were all written by Jews (very important to note that) all Apocrypha and Gnostic books were written by Gentiles and unbelieving in the LORD, Jews under christening conversion to the Catholic church long after 250 AD.

I'm sure Origen and Eusebius believed some of them. Origen was declared Heretical and Eusebius was accused of justifying lying. This are the men who contributed most to what you call the New Testaments, including the verse that you called AKJV.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Did you know that more Jews died at the hands of more Catholics in Poland, Germany, Spain, France, Morocco, Egypt, Russia, Austria, Greece, Arabians, Iraqis and Iranians and more than the 6 million who died under Catholic Hitler during WWII?

Because Hitler believe God justify the Israelites to genocide the Amalekites in the bible. Now who wrote that? Have you ever wonder that? Have you wonder why it comes back to the Jews?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
A little reading of older history books and studying the word of God, and history would reveal one thing. Men trying to bring in a period of the golden age of enlightenment have done nothing but fill the earth with wars, the hospital beds with the injured, and filled the grave yards with coffins.

Men believe in prophecies. Men believe in silly secrets of heaven and god. So they come up with craps that ultimately turn into their own demised. Men plan and engineer their own doom.

God, however, does not prophesize. God does not hide secrets nor does god tempt men into believing craps. All was and is revealed, the way it was meant by Adam, Abraham, Isaiah, Mosses and Yeshua.

But men choose to seek other mean to assume this and that. This is what you get for believing craps. God allow it because it's the nature of free will for men to learn their mistake and grow up.
Men had cast their own judgment and were punished by their own action, the same manner a child would do to himself. Even Hitler did not escape punishment for his own deed. He literally live in earthly hell filled with allied air bombings and Russian artillery fires. Do you think Hitler enjoy it?

Everything that begins will End. That is the law of nature. That is the law of god. That is the predestiny of everything been created. Past, Present and Future. Nothing escape fate. Men such as Hitler, just the cause of everything that will prevail in the end. That is what happen to 6 million Jews in WWII....

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Unless God the father, the Spirit of the Living God, and the Lord Jesus Christ indwell thee, you cannot no matter how hard you try understand the words of God as found in the AKJV.

You know, ChesterJohn. This is where you are seriously flaw in you logic. You maybe right other people beside you cannot understand AKJV, because of all it's soft porns and unicorns, dragons, etc.. But if you think people cannot understand the word of god, then you need to reflect back your view.

The scriptures maybe close to god's words but they're not everything. You never know how God communicate with his creation. No one knows. God is like air. HE is nowhere yet He is everywhere. Sometimes, if you look at how huge the universe is, you will realize that there are more to everything than the scripture and you ever know. So it would be best if you could seek deep within yourself and think hard of what you have said to other people...

Ok, I can only share so much and it no longer matters as it drifted so far off topic I can only choose no longer to reply to the members posts. As this is not a thread on how to study a bible. that is a totally different issue.

This thread was created for the bringing out the First Mentions in the Bible, so far I shared two the second one was totally ignored or overlooked.

So having said that does anybody have any first mentions in the AKJV Bible they would like to share and discuss?

a reply to: DISRAELI

you would be correct there. Seeing you are using a name of a man who changed the torah and the combined commentaries with the law and prophets and made Israel the Messiah, I am sure you know more about ho since 70AD the Jews have been forced to become RC members or priests, and Moslem and as such have written both Talmuds, the Mishta's and the Mishaws (spelling an pronunciations I may have mistaken) but from what I can tell literally over 5000 books they have wirtten to a s late as 1960, that spiritualist and allegorise the Law, remove all prophecies as they have to do with the person of Jesus Christ, reject the NT books, accepted sacraments of and positions in the RC.

They are also, responsible for a greater number of Jews being slaughtered around the world than that of the Hitler, a Roman Catholic, during WWII all the way to the present time by all the murders at the hands of the RC church supported (Arabs) claiming to be Palestinians, Hamas and all other terrorist groups since the 1948.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
To be honest, I was more interested in using the name of the man who passed the Second Reform Act of 1867, proclaimed Queen Victoria as Empress of India, and bought controlling shares in the Suez canal.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hey, did you look into the first mention of "Holy". Totally caught me off guard, I said like wow that can't be right, the first time God calls something holy in his word it is ground/dirt/land/real estate. Then between that time and when Joshua went into the land near Jericho 152 mentions of the world holy and it all has to do with preparing Israel to go into the land he called holy and he said to Joshua the Place he is standing on is holy, LAND!

We know right now it is as far away from Holy as it could be but it is His land and he will purify it and put his people back in it after he finises off the seventieth week of their Judgement.

I am playing with SwordSearcher it has this new feature called word trees and you can type in a word or a phrase and it shows it all broken down into branches of other verses where the word if used and even breaks down into the words of the phrase and where those are used as well.

SwordSearcher Bible program is probably the best Bible program I have ever used. Not the simplest that would be Power Bible, but one of the better ones for studying in. And it has lots of Modules you can down load if you want more than what comes in the basic program.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
When I follow the "original meaning" approach to the word, what I find is that "holy" means "set apart as belonging to God". You will find that this meaning works very well for all the examples you have been quoting.

If you go to a copy of Crudens and focus on the New Testament, you will notice two very interesting things.
One is that the New Testament has almost no references to "holy place".
The other is that the most common use of "holy" is "Holy Ghost".
In fact "Holy Ghost" is the very first use of "holy" in the New Testament (Matthew ch1v18).

One more thing may be noticed from looking beyond the English translation and paying attention to the original languages.
Viz. that "saints" is same word. It is simply the plural of "holy".
So when the church are called "the saints", it means that they are a holy people, a people set apart as belonging to God.

I think all this has two morals.
One is that focussing on "first use in the Bible" has the effect of skewing interpretation towards the Old Testament understanding of things, and away from the new understandings brought by Christ. For example, one may not notice how the New Testament shifts the concept of "holiness" away from "land" and towards the Holy Spirit and the holy people.

The other is that concentrating on the English translation alone brings the danger of missing important insights, whenever the same word is being translated in different ways, as in the case of "holy" and "saints".

oh nooo!

a reply to: DISRAELI


Palm Face Central

a reply to: ChesterJohn
If you choose to make yourself blind, I cannot compel you to see.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

It has always been as I seen it once you go down to the Greek and Hebrew you will end up in a bear trap that snaps shut on you so tight many never get out of its grip and false teachings are awash today in the church because of making changes to the meaning without considering the immediate meaning at hand in the verse in context.

How incredibly refreshing to read this and to know at least a few Christians out there understand this concept. Thank God for this statement alone. Stick with the AV, KJB and all will be well. We have yet to barely scratch the surface on the glories of the English text, so don't go digging around in dead languages that God abandoned (on purpose).

a reply to: MonarchofBooks1611

Refreshing, to know there are others like myself who know the words of God are preserved for us in the AKJV.

I've been reading my AKJV since 2005 and haven't left it once for any other since then. Up until that time I had read and handled most of the new bibles versions out there. They all conflicted each other and they did not have all the verses.

Yo can anything of mine you like but don't take my AKJV Bible.

Blessings bother.

Ok, well we looked at two first uses, one was a Phrase, and other was a word. But there is something in Verse one that we will find over 500 times in the Bible and that is the word and person of God.

Yes, this is the first use of God in the collection of 66 books called the Holy Bible. The Bible never once tries to prove God or argue the existence of God, it simply believes that God is. It starts with a prepositional fact "in the beginning God". That is correct the Bible never assumes there is a God it states and believes that God is without any argument.

Once we open and start with the personal preposition God, we will discover that there are other uses of descriptive names of God like LORD, Lord, Almighty, Jehovah, Most holy, the Word and One just to name a few.

So what we find in the very first sentence in the Bible is the prepositional phrase "In the Beginning God . . ". The Bible begins with full belief and respect for and of God. The rest of the sentence is a description of the power of God, that is "God created the heaven and earth".

If you come to the first of verse of the Bible and you cannot get past the fact, God, then you need to just put the book down and go watch TV. Because if you do not believe, as the book presents God then the rest of the book is useless to you. For you can only come to the knowledge of him if you believe that he is, you would ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, which is God.

Another first in the Bible was the first recorded question to Adam, "Where art thou?" This is ominous because Adam was not where he is supposed to be physically, spiritually and mentally. Some are not where they ought to be, some are where they shouldn't be, and some just don't know where they are going to be.

Also, another first use is the word sin found in Genesis Chapter Four, it was Cain. We have the choice to allow sin the manifest itself in us or turn to God's word for deliverance from it's curse, Its temptation and from its outcome in our lives.

Both the above points are outlines you can use for preaching topically form Genesis Three verse Nine, and Four verses 6 and 7.